Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
M/S NATIONAL MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION - Appellant
Vs.
M/S MUKHERJEEPARA SANMILITA PALLIBASHI SAMITI THR ITS SECTRETARY & ORS - Respondents
RFA 592/2016
Decided on : 16-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, Advocate
The legal point established is that the court has no discretion to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, except within the mandate of the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the said Act.
Headnote:
Limitation - Guarantee - Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - [M/s National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation vs. Mukherjeepara Sanmilita Pallibashi Samity] - [Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] - [Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963] - The court dismissed the appeal assailing the judgment and decree, holding that the suit for recovery of money was barred by limitation. The appellant's argument that the guarantee executed by the defendant was a continuing guarantee and extended the period of limitation on account of acknowledgement of debt was deemed fallacious and devoid of merits. The court confirmed the decision of the trial court, dismissing the appeal as being barred by limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal assails the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for recovery of money, as being barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit for recovery of money was barred by limitation and confirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the guarantee executed by the defendant was a continuing guarantee and extended the period of limitation on account of acknowledgement of debt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's argument regarding the continuing guarantee and extension of limitation was fallacious and devoid of merits, confirming the dismissal of the appeal as being barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
CM APPL.29566/2016 (Condonation of Delay in Refiling)
For the reasons stated in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the delay in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
RFA 592/2016 & CM APPL.29565/2016 (Condonation of Delay in Filing), CM APPL.29564/2016 (Stay)
1. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assails the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2015, passed by the District & Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS No.108/2015, titled “M/s National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation vs. Mukherjeepara Sanmilita Pallibashi Samity.” whereby the said suit for recovery of money, instituted on behalf of the appellant herein came to be dismissed, as being barred by limitation.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant canvasses a solitary ground before this Court in the present appeal. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the guarantee executed by the defendant was in the nature of a continuing guarantee and that consequently, since the appellant kept issuing demand notices invoking the said guarantee, the period of limitation came to be extended on account of the acknowledgement of debt, in terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’).
3. In this behalf, it would be expedient to consider the provision of Section 19 of the said Act:-
“19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy. – Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made:
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgement of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
Explanation. – For the purpose of this section, --
(a) Where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment;
(b) “debt” does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court.”
4. A plain reading of the above provision clearly postulates that where a payment is made on account of a debt, before the prescribed period of limitation under the said Act expires, by the debtor, a fresh period of limitation is set into motion from the time such payment is made.
5. In the present appeal, it is observed that subsequent upon the disbursement of the loan on 23.12.2000, the appellant has not averred that any payment has been received from the defendants.
6. In this backdrop, the learned trial court dismissed the suit with the following order:-
“ Vide this order, I shall dispose arguments on the point of limitation. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against defendants for recovery of Rs.8,35,734/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Four). Facts as mentioned in the plaint are that defendants requested the plaintiff for financial assistance by way of loan and the plaintiff sanctioned loan under Micro Credit Scheme and sanctioned the loan in two installments on 19.04.2006. First installment of Rs.4,50,000/- was released vide bank draft dated 05.06.2006 and the second installment of the same amount was released on 09.11.2006. The plaintiff requested the defendants avoided to pay back the same on one pretext or the other. Last acknowledgement on record is dated 23.01.2009. As per statement of account, a sum of Rs.8,35,734/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Four) was due as on 16.06.2014. Demand notice dated 04.07.2014 was sent to the defendant calling upon them to repay the amount due, but of no avail.
2. Perusal of averments of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has so
